Why ICC accountability remains vital in Libya

In a statement published by the UK government after a UN Security Council briefing on Libya, ministers made a clear argument: accountability is not separate from stability. If you want a country to move on from violence, you cannot treat justice as an optional extra. That matters because diplomatic language can sound distant and procedural. Yet the point here is easy to follow. When alleged atrocities go unanswered, victims are pushed aside, armed actors learn they may escape scrutiny, and public trust weakens further. The UK statement also noted its regret that Deputy Prosecutor Khan was unable to brief the Council in person, even though the Council had said that briefing should happen that way.

The UK government statement welcomed progress by the International Criminal Court's Office of the Prosecutor since the last Libya briefing. It highlighted the conclusion of the confirmation of charges hearing in the case of Khaled Mohamed Ali El Hishri, following his arrest and surrender to the Court late last year. If you are new to ICC procedure, a confirmation of charges hearing is not the final trial. It is an earlier stage in which judges decide whether there is enough evidence for the case to move forward. **What this means:** for victims and affected communities, even reaching this point can show that justice is still possible, even when it has been delayed.

The statement placed real weight on the fact that many victims of the alleged crimes were represented in proceedings before the Court. That detail matters more than it might first appear. International justice can sometimes look like lawyers speaking to other lawyers in a distant courtroom, but these cases are supposed to keep the people most affected in view. When victims are represented, the process does more than examine legal arguments. It can publicly recognise harm, record what communities say they endured, and show that suffering is not being brushed aside. We should not pretend a court can repair every loss. But it can help rebuild a basic sense that the law still applies, even after conflict.

Another important phrase in the UK statement was 'complementarity'. It sounds technical, but the idea is fairly simple. The ICC is meant to work alongside national justice systems, not replace them in every situation. Where domestic authorities are able and willing to act, they remain central. That is why the statement welcomed the Prosecutor's ongoing engagement with national authorities. It pointed to information from the ICC Office of the Prosecutor helping domestic proceedings in the Netherlands over alleged human trafficking offences. **What this means:** international justice and domestic justice do not have to pull in different directions. In stronger cases, they support one another.

The UK also urged the Libyan authorities, including the Office of the Attorney General, to take steps that support further progress on accountability. That is an important reminder that outside institutions cannot do this work alone. Courts need cooperation, access, evidence, and a willingness from national authorities to help difficult cases move. For readers trying to understand post-conflict justice, this is where the story becomes practical. Stability is not only about ceasefires, elite deals or statements at the UN. It is also about whether ordinary people can see that powerful figures may be investigated, that institutions will not simply look away, and that the state is prepared to back that principle when it becomes uncomfortable.

Finally, the UK government reaffirmed its support for the ICC and for the Court's independence, and said it does not support sanctions against individuals or organisations associated with the Court. That may sound like institutional language, but it carries a simple message. Courts cannot do their job properly if they are punished for pursuing accountability. So the wider lesson here is not just about one briefing or one hearing. It is about whether Libya, its institutions and international partners can show that justice still matters after war and abuse. According to the UK statement, the recent progress is encouraging. For all of us reading from outside, the takeaway is straightforward: accountability can be slow and incomplete, but without it, any promise of lasting stability stands on very weak ground.